The question of classifying workers within the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) exemption was under the lens of U.S. Supreme Court Justices, as they deliberated the scope of the term ‘transportation workers’. An example of this debate was seen in the contentious case of Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., where truck drivers for the company that makes Wonder Bread raised questions about their standing in the context of the FAA’s arbitration.”
By description, the key language of FAA’s clause protects employees by exempting “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce”. In essence, judges took on the task of determining whether the deciding factor was the employer’s industry or the nature of the employee’s work.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was a dominant voice during the oral argument, exhibited an inclination towards favoring the employers. Kavanaugh was of the persuasion that the historical context and design of the statue suggested an emphasis on whether the workers operate within the transportation industry. He even referred to a 1936 provision for the airline industry, treating the statute as directed at the industry employing the workers. Justice Kavanaugh also expressed that ruling for employee protection from mandatory arbitration would trigger significant changes with substantial impact for both employers and employees.
A few justices, however, remained unsure of the result. Notably, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared to favor distinguishing between transportation workers and other workers, suggesting that one need not be in the transportation industry to be classified as a transportation worker. This argument was augmented by discussions surrounding workers and statutes from the 1920s when the same interpretation was applicable.
While the outcome of this critical legal debate remains uncertain, the detailed deliberations foreshadow a comprehensive reconsideration of provisions and views around the industry and job roles. Corporate legal teams would be wise to closely watch for any decision resulting from this case.